Heyman: Source says O's are "tapped out".

[mark_beckens]

Too bad you don't own the team. I think the vast majority of us on here would prefer that whether we agree with you on topics or not as this comment shows a dedication to winning which is the main issue we all have had with Angelos over the years.

Still, from a business angle, I cannot blame owners for looking to their sports teams as a revenue generator year over year and running the team as they would any other business. In fact, most owners are business men first and that is all they know. I would prefer this not be the case as a fan, but if you are going to do this, you should clearly communicate your budget and the financial allotments, hire the right people and get out of the way.

I think the best owners are the ones who are fans first businessmen second. If you own a team to get the best profit on your investment. You're gonna have alot of pissed off fans. I feel that the value of the team increases with success. Winning and championships increase fan base, season tickets, concession sales, merchandize sales and TV contracts. You gotta spend money to make money. Win games, goto the playoffs, win championships, fan base grows, revunue increases. Profit both yearly and the net worth of the team increases. You make 5-10 times the amount when and if you sell.

I have a Marketing and Economics degree from Towson. I have been working on a model for years to make sports, specifically baseball, more even without luxary taxes and hard caps. I dispise free agency. It only benefits the players. The fans, watch a player get drafted, progress through the minor leagues, play out his contract then leave. We as fans fall in love with the players on our team only to have them leave. I miss the days when your favorite players played for your team until they got traded, for one reason or another.

[BOOGPOW]

Because a lot of times it doesn't. See Angels, Blue Jays.

That's true, but that's professional sports! It's risky, but sometimes you have to take those risks. We saw success last year (the first in 15 years!) without any big name or big $$ FA/Trade types. I fear that instead of wanting to continue the success and putting out the money, Pete may just tell DD and Buck "Do it again, just as you did last year AND do it with the same budget."

[DrungoHazewood]

I dispise free agency. It only benefits the players. The fans, watch a player get drafted, progress through the minor leagues, play out his contract then leave. We as fans fall in love with the players on our team only to have them leave. I miss the days when your favorite players played for your team until they got traded, for one reason or another.

Why should athletes be the only members of our society who aren't allowed to leverage their talents to maximize their happiness? To me appeasing fans of teams unpopular with free agents doesn't even remotely justify that.

[mark_beckens]

Why should athletes be the only members of our society who aren't allowed to leverage their talents to maximize their happiness? To me appeasing fans of teams unpopular with free agents doesn't even remotely justify that.

How many times have you heard players, coaches, GM's and owners say. The game is all about the fans?

[DrungoHazewood]

How many times have you heard players, coaches, GM's and owners say. The game is all about the fans?

Oh, it is. And since the game is as popular or more popular than ever (at least in terms of attendance) and generating more revenues from the fans than ever I'd say it is. And I don't know why the fans, in general, would be happier if the players they rooted for had no choice in where they played or were forced to give up most of the money they currently make so as to further enrich the owners.

[Mayor McCheese]

I think the best owners are the ones who are fans first businessmen second. If you own a team to get the best profit on your investment. You're gonna have alot of pissed off fans. I feel that the value of the team increases with success. Winning and championships increase fan base, season tickets, concession sales, merchandize sales and TV contracts. You gotta spend money to make money. Win games, goto the playoffs, win championships, fan base grows, revunue increases. Profit both yearly and the net worth of the team increases. You make 5-10 times the amount when and if you sell.

I have a Marketing and Economics degree from Towson. I have been working on a model for years to make sports, specifically baseball, more even without luxary taxes and hard caps. I dispise free agency. It only benefits the players. The fans, watch a player get drafted, progress through the minor leagues, play out his contract then leave. We as fans fall in love with the players on our team only to have them leave. I miss the days when your favorite players played for your team until they got traded, for one reason or another.

Don't blame it on the players. It's the medias fault. No reason why a person should ever be paid $20-$30MM a year to play a sport.

[mdbdotcom]

Don't blame it on the players. It's the medias fault. No reason why a person should ever be paid $20-$30MM a year to play a sport.

They aren't paid that much to play a sport. They are paid that much to entertain millions of people in the seats and watching on TV. TV advertising costs more for sports (for a variety of reasons), and that generates huge amounts of money. Entertainers whose work brings in huge amounts of money get paid accordingly.

[O-The-Memories]

Don't blame it on the players. It's the medias fault. No reason why a person should ever be paid $20-$30MM a year to play a sport.

Of course they should, we live in a (relatively) free market. Think of the money the player makes for the owner, not to mention the revenue coming into a city because of a popular sports team. I can't imagine the real financial impact of the Orioles and Ravens leaving Baltimore, but I imagine it would be close to devastating to the city. How many people are employed, directly or otherwise, because of a team?

[hoosiers]

A lot of rationalizing of inexplicable cost cutting moves here. The trading away of international slots, need to acquire cash to land Chris Davis a few years ago, etc., it all points towards a team that is unwilling to spend. Angelos has shown absolutely no inclination to spend any money to make the team great in years.

I've already mentally prepared for a Chris Davis departure in a few years. I hope it won't happen, but at this point I have no faith that we will ever spend that MASN money.

Very little in your discussion points to an owner "unwilling to spend".

International slots? What's the big deal? Sure, I'd rather acquire them then deal them, but what exactly is the value of these slots - relative to what we gave up? Would you rather give up prospects than an international slot? I imagine most folks here have very little clue as to the value of those slots. So, we trade a few international slots, which might have little to do with our overall, intended international spend, and, then, actually spend more than the value of the slots we gave up on a Cuban prospect! Perhaps your definition of "unwilling to spend" is a bit different than mine.

Who cares about the need to acquire cash to land Davis? The deal got done, didn't it? It came from $ already committed by the owner to Derrek Lee. So, the owner spoke up, created a bar for the GM to clear, and the GM cleared it. Would someone rather the owner just pile in another $2M to the team? Maybe. Did things work out better for the organization the way things went down? Yes.

Our owner may lean to the cheap side. He might be making massive profits on this team. But I don't see an unwillingness to spend - mostly shrewd player moves by our GMs - as explained by your logic.

[mark_beckens]

Don't blame it on the players. It's the medias fault. No reason why a person should ever be paid $20-$30MM a year to play a sport.

The players fought for free agency and changed the game forever. And IMO not in a good way. It helped them get larger salaries and freedom to move. Many of them are mercenaries who can be bought for the most money. The media only reports what players make. They have nothing to do with deciding how much a team is willing to pay a player. NO player is worth 20+ million a year.

[DrungoHazewood]

Don't blame it on the players. It's the medias fault. No reason why a person should ever be paid $20-$30MM a year to play a sport.

Why shouldn't they be? If they are a primary reason that several million people are willing to fork over $50 a head they should certainly have a sizeable cut of that. If there's "blame" it's all on us, the fans. If you don't think athletes should make much money then stop paying for cable, stop buying tickets, stop buying merchandise, stop reading newspapers and watching ESPN... and convince all your friends to do the same.

The players fought for free agency and changed the game forever. And IMO not in a good way. It helped them get larger salaries and freedom to move. Many of them are mercenaries who can be bought for the most money. The media only reports what players make. They have nothing to do with deciding how much a team is willing to pay a player. NO player is worth 20+ million a year.

You seem to be defending a position wherein baseball players have their salaries dictated and capped by others, where they're told where they can play and have no choice in the matter. How can it be so important to have a player play for your team as long as you want him that you take his basic rights away in perpetuity? That seems to be in direct contravention of everything American capatalism is all about (not that much of North American sports isn't highly anti-competitive).

If no player is worth $20M a year then what do you propose they do with all of that revenue? Logically it would go to the owners, and I really fail to see how Peter Angelos being a billionaire 10 times over instead of 8 is any more desireable from a fan's perspective.

In any case, when you mess with the market you often get unexpected results. Like, if you went back to a reserve clause system where the owner essentially had total control you will eventually get players coming up with alternate solutions. You'll get good players going to Japan, where they seem fine with paying players $5M a year. You'll get rumblings about new leagues that will pay players according to market rates. You'll get players who're good at multiple sports going elsewhere if the pay is better, and the talent pool will shrink. You'll get owners who'll get really creative and find new ways to compensate players that don't involve cash.

In any case, I think it's awful to romanticize a period in history where players were treated like (reasonably well paid) cattle just because you don't like to think about money and you want Manny Machado to be a 23-year Oriole whether he wants that or not.

[mdbdotcom]

Does anyone know how much of KRod's remaining salary the "tapped out" Orioles are paying?

[wildcard]

Does anyone know how much of KRod's remaining salary the "tapped out" Orioles are paying?

I have not read where any cash was exchanged. KRod has about 1M left of his 2M salary if the payments where equally spread. There in not a lot of information out there on the details of KRod contract.

[BohKnowsBmore]

Of course they should, we live in a (relatively) free market. Think of the money the player makes for the owner, not to mention the revenue coming into a city because of a popular sports team. I can't imagine the real financial impact of the Orioles and Ravens leaving Baltimore, but I imagine it would be close to devastating to the city. How many people are employed, directly or otherwise, because of a team?

One thing that I think a lot of people neglect in these models when they claim that sports franchises don't provide the promised economic benefit, is that a lot of their benefit is hard to measure. I live downtown. I would not be considered money coming in from out of town for games. However, the presence of the O's and Ravens downtown is a very large determinant in my decision to live in the city as a young professional.

[El Gordo]

The players fought for free agency and changed the game forever. And IMO not in a good way. It helped them get larger salaries and freedom to move. Many of them are mercenaries who can be bought for the most money. The media only reports what players make. They have nothing to do with deciding how much a team is willing to pay a player. NO player is worth 20+ million a year.

Was Schwartzenegger worth the 20M per picture he got at the height of his career? He was a crappy actor. The baseball players making that kind of money are much better at what they do than him. But both are part of the entertainment industry and if their names on the marquee sells tickets, then to people who are shrewd about how they spend their money they are worth the investment.